global warming is real, what isnt clear is whether its naturally occurring or by man or some combination of both. obviously we know what are green house gases and that make a shit ton of it. however,i think scientists underestimate the effects of natural atmospheric heating processes. pollution poisons alot of wildlife, but its not any more than a negligent contribution by the real greenhouse gases we DO vent to the atmosphere. cant argue the stats in weather diaries,the earth is getting warmer.
not only is it NOT green, but that double wall will eat up over 200sqft of floorspace, we pay avg 100$/sqft, so you are looking at 20,000$ minimum wasted AT THE LEAST. Way more lumber, less insulation value. Fire hazard. The greenest possible houses will be underground, and thats no fun.
In a 32'x48' home, the doubled walls are 48' long by 6." An "extra" Sunspace wall is there anyway if you have a "sunroom." Only the inner North wall is "Extra" - 24 sq. ft.
In Enertia homes, insulation is not critical - it does not work by heating or cooling air and trapping it inside. It heats the timbers, which radiate heat to you in Winter. In Summer the key is to avoid buildup of heat.
Heavy timber is NOT a fire hazard. After all, which burns faster - a 2x4 stud, or a 6x6 timber?
here, when it is 115*f and the ground is 80*f six feet down, how are you going to get that house 72* and more importantly dry. No such thing as cool and dry, without an a/c here bud. How warm is it gonna get in there at 3am when it is -30 and the wind is blowing, just a bunch of office jockey engineers centuries behind the building community.
It's a very interesting idea that might be worth developing for milder climates? The concept of the envelope house was tried in the late 70's in Wisconsin but had too many drawbacks to catch on such as fire being able to travel through the wall cavities from basement or crawlspace to attic (building code now requires fire dampers), mildew odor during humid weather, and the advantages didn't justify the additional cost of construction. And it DOES use too much lumber to be truly "green".
The use of heavy timber takes care of the fire problems that occur with 2x4 construction. The airflow combats the liklihood of any mildew, although in really humid climates some dehumidification might be used. And as for the timber, trees are replanted - many times more than used. Proper timber growing and harvesting processes are used, and while the trees grow the clean the air. Once in the house, their carbon content is sequestered.
The real question is Who defines what is "Truly Green" and why should these people define Green for everyone. Anyone doing anything to help out is a good thing regardless of scale.
If the Sun is out, it trumps the air temperature, however cold it may be. The Sun-heated air circulating in the outer shell warms the timber walls which absorb heat all day and then slowly release it. If there is no sun for several days the radiant in-floor heat takes over. And, the earth temp at roughly 54 degrees tempers the outer shell air. On fierce days, the occupants only need to elevate the temperature from 54 to comfort level, not from the outside temperature to comfort level.
Does anyone see the flaw in this theory? "Absorb, Retain, and Transfer Heat" Think about it. This means that this house also Absorbs, Retains, and Transfer Cold at the same rate, salt crystals and all. This theory has been used as a sales pitch by the log home industry for years. Want a better plan that will actually heat your home in cold regions. Passive solar design + insulation + solar radiant floor heating = a house that is truly heated by the sun even in cold climate.
If there were no "envelope" in this house, this statement might make some sense. But, with the "envelope" the house has its own buffer climate so that the true cold outside does not penetrate enough at night to counter the warmth stored by the wood during the day.
Perhaps not, until we achieve more mass production and economy of scale. But some families with average budgets, but above average knowledge, skills and motivation have managed it.
err wrong. giant houses like that can never be sustainable no matter what they are heated by. even without any heating at all, the idea that you can build such houses obviously fit for the wealthy and think that the environmental crisis will be solved amongst the immense inequalities born by capitalism is rubbish. if you really want to work towards a solution stop pandering to the rich for a buck, and go help the majority of those on earth, the poor. only then can you talk of sustainability.
err wrong. giant houses like that can never be sustainable no matter what they are heated by. even without any heating at all, the idea that you can build such houses obviously fit for the wealthy and think that the environmental crisis will be solved amongst the immense inequalities born by capitalism is rubbish. if you really want to work towards a solution stop pandering to the rich for a buck, and go help the majority of those on earth, the poor. only then can you talk of sustainability.
Help yourself first and then you can help others. Also, Pine trees can grow back again... composite material require industries, which require factories, which require more material. KISS (Keep it simple silly) appears to be a great idea.
Replly - This is a commonly held idea, but incorrect. First, Enertia employees have planted over 1/2 million trees around the Southeast of the US. Next, as trees grow they clean the air for us. But they do not live forever. Harvesting them and using them in an Enertia home sequesters the carbon they contain, which would be put back in the atmosphere if they simply died naturally. It takes about 30 seconds for the Southeast pine forests to regrow enough wood to build one Enertia home.
ok, so I poured resin all over my house as you suggested, but I am not seeing the effects that you promised.
leloodallasmultipass 2 years ago 5
ha ha!
qdewill 2 years ago
Cool
scarymazegamefan 2 years ago
Love the ideas of these homes, not because I'm am so retarded as to believe in global warming but the savings in energy bills would be great.
kdogksw 2 years ago
global warming is real, what isnt clear is whether its naturally occurring or by man or some combination of both. obviously we know what are green house gases and that make a shit ton of it. however,i think scientists underestimate the effects of natural atmospheric heating processes. pollution poisons alot of wildlife, but its not any more than a negligent contribution by the real greenhouse gases we DO vent to the atmosphere. cant argue the stats in weather diaries,the earth is getting warmer.
Pimpmastahanhduece 1 year ago
not only is it NOT green, but that double wall will eat up over 200sqft of floorspace, we pay avg 100$/sqft, so you are looking at 20,000$ minimum wasted AT THE LEAST. Way more lumber, less insulation value. Fire hazard. The greenest possible houses will be underground, and thats no fun.
d1incharge 2 years ago
In a 32'x48' home, the doubled walls are 48' long by 6." An "extra" Sunspace wall is there anyway if you have a "sunroom." Only the inner North wall is "Extra" - 24 sq. ft.
In Enertia homes, insulation is not critical - it does not work by heating or cooling air and trapping it inside. It heats the timbers, which radiate heat to you in Winter. In Summer the key is to avoid buildup of heat.
Heavy timber is NOT a fire hazard. After all, which burns faster - a 2x4 stud, or a 6x6 timber?
qdewill 2 years ago 2
here, when it is 115*f and the ground is 80*f six feet down, how are you going to get that house 72* and more importantly dry. No such thing as cool and dry, without an a/c here bud. How warm is it gonna get in there at 3am when it is -30 and the wind is blowing, just a bunch of office jockey engineers centuries behind the building community.
d1incharge 2 years ago
It's a very interesting idea that might be worth developing for milder climates? The concept of the envelope house was tried in the late 70's in Wisconsin but had too many drawbacks to catch on such as fire being able to travel through the wall cavities from basement or crawlspace to attic (building code now requires fire dampers), mildew odor during humid weather, and the advantages didn't justify the additional cost of construction. And it DOES use too much lumber to be truly "green".
markhinr 2 years ago 6
The use of heavy timber takes care of the fire problems that occur with 2x4 construction. The airflow combats the liklihood of any mildew, although in really humid climates some dehumidification might be used. And as for the timber, trees are replanted - many times more than used. Proper timber growing and harvesting processes are used, and while the trees grow the clean the air. Once in the house, their carbon content is sequestered.
qdewill 2 years ago
The real question is Who defines what is "Truly Green" and why should these people define Green for everyone. Anyone doing anything to help out is a good thing regardless of scale.
IKLIPTIC 2 years ago
Where do I find out more about this idea? There must be principles that can be applied to any house. Can someone recommend a book or website for me?
TotemSaint 3 years ago
If the Sun is out, it trumps the air temperature, however cold it may be. The Sun-heated air circulating in the outer shell warms the timber walls which absorb heat all day and then slowly release it. If there is no sun for several days the radiant in-floor heat takes over. And, the earth temp at roughly 54 degrees tempers the outer shell air. On fierce days, the occupants only need to elevate the temperature from 54 to comfort level, not from the outside temperature to comfort level.
qdewill 3 years ago
Does anyone see the flaw in this theory? "Absorb, Retain, and Transfer Heat" Think about it. This means that this house also Absorbs, Retains, and Transfer Cold at the same rate, salt crystals and all. This theory has been used as a sales pitch by the log home industry for years. Want a better plan that will actually heat your home in cold regions. Passive solar design + insulation + solar radiant floor heating = a house that is truly heated by the sun even in cold climate.
dirkhooley 3 years ago
If there were no "envelope" in this house, this statement might make some sense. But, with the "envelope" the house has its own buffer climate so that the true cold outside does not penetrate enough at night to counter the warmth stored by the wood during the day.
qdewill 2 years ago
OK NOW...the question is can the average family afford to do that?
zombieddie73 3 years ago
Perhaps not, until we achieve more mass production and economy of scale. But some families with average budgets, but above average knowledge, skills and motivation have managed it.
qdewill 3 years ago
you think this is as green as it gets, you should see earthships
trxmedia 3 years ago
Geothermal energy without drilling!
GlobalGreenAlliance 4 years ago
err wrong. giant houses like that can never be sustainable no matter what they are heated by. even without any heating at all, the idea that you can build such houses obviously fit for the wealthy and think that the environmental crisis will be solved amongst the immense inequalities born by capitalism is rubbish. if you really want to work towards a solution stop pandering to the rich for a buck, and go help the majority of those on earth, the poor. only then can you talk of sustainability.
uhhhgggg 4 years ago
err wrong. giant houses like that can never be sustainable no matter what they are heated by. even without any heating at all, the idea that you can build such houses obviously fit for the wealthy and think that the environmental crisis will be solved amongst the immense inequalities born by capitalism is rubbish. if you really want to work towards a solution stop pandering to the rich for a buck, and go help the majority of those on earth, the poor. only then can you talk of sustainability.
uhhhgggg 4 years ago
Help yourself first and then you can help others. Also, Pine trees can grow back again... composite material require industries, which require factories, which require more material. KISS (Keep it simple silly) appears to be a great idea.
CyclePat 3 years ago
A very intelligent concept put together by a very intelligent person!!! It just makes sense!!
diegojen 4 years ago
Everyone should do this....is it really true?
brucebuddha 4 years ago
Superb!
I'd like my house to be built this way.
Why isn't the government promoting this?
Faiakes 4 years ago
Wow, lots of trees had to die for this type of housing. NOT GOOD for the environment! Composite building materials should be used instead.
FatJan 5 years ago
Replly - This is a commonly held idea, but incorrect. First, Enertia employees have planted over 1/2 million trees around the Southeast of the US. Next, as trees grow they clean the air for us. But they do not live forever. Harvesting them and using them in an Enertia home sequesters the carbon they contain, which would be put back in the atmosphere if they simply died naturally. It takes about 30 seconds for the Southeast pine forests to regrow enough wood to build one Enertia home.
qdewill 3 years ago